Andy McDonald
MP for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East · Labour · United Kingdom
“Colleagues will wish to know whether British arms exports currently available for the IDF in the west bank will no longer be licensed. I welcome the proposed sanctions on goods and services linked to illegal settlements I very much welcome that in the context of the previous ridiculous position of properties being marketed in this city fo…”
“That serious risk itself triggers a duty to prevent genocide. The UK must therefore recognise that risk and act now: ending political, financial and military support that contributes to it; sanctioning those most implicated; committing to execute International Criminal Court arrest warrants; and supporting South Africa’s case at the ICJ.”
“It is also welcome that the Foreign Secretary acknowledged the increasing evidence identified by bodies, including the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry, that war crimes appear to have been committed in Gaza, and we support the appropriate legal processes to establish responsibility for those crimes.”
“I will confine my remarks to the subject of Israel and Palestine, and I declare my interest as co-chair of the all-party group on Britain-Palestine.”
“The Minister is setting out the criteria around the crime of genocide, but would she accept that the duty actually bites when the risk of genocide is known, not at the determination of legal processes? That is when the United Kingdom has a duty to act. I welcome the steps that have been taken thus far.”
“My father served in Gaza from 1945 to 1947, and the position was the same then: this country had failed to discharge its responsibilities to the people of Palestine. But I commend the Foreign Secretary for his statement and the courage and clarity of both him and the Prime Minister in making it.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Andy McDonald, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 12.
“My constituent has contacted me about his daughter, who lives with PoTS and faces exhausting weekly travel for costly private IV treatment due to the lack of local NHS provision. They have now found support in York, but it is still far from home. Does my hon. Friend agree that the absence of national clinical guidelines and clear care pathways leaves too many families in that position, and that the Government should do more to ensure consistent and accessible care for people with PoTS, wherever they live?”
“I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and we all achingly welcome the longed-for ceasefire in Gaza and the safe return of prisoners and hostages, but does the Prime Minister share my concern that the 20-point plan is without Palestinian input? Will he acknowledge the need for Palestinian self-determination and their consent for any governance or stabilisation arrangements? Will he ensure the continued pursuit of war criminals, and will he work to achieve an end to Israel’s illegal occupation of all Palestinian territories and the full engagement of a sovereign Palestinian state?”
“T3. Tory cuts to local authorities cruelly caused lasting damage to many communities. What a contrast to the Government’s Pride in Place programme awards to Park End and Thorntree in Middlesbrough, which will change lives for the better. Does the Secretary of State agree that 100% council tax equalisation and a new children’s formula are essential elements to fully deliver for those communities that were totally overlooked by the Conservatives?”
“I wish to intervene, not to have the shadow Minister shape the terms of my intervention. She is talking about the impact of the Employment Rights Bill. How can that be? Has it yet been enacted?”
“If workers are in good, well-paid work, they can go on to lead good, flourishing lives, and they will return that as a dividend through their collaboration with their employer. They will also be in a position to be more active in the economy. We know that when working people have money, they are able to spend it and generate activity in the economy. Does the Minister agree?”
“Much has been said about the process, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it was clearly never worth the risk to appoint Peter Mandelson? Will he go further than that on the professionalism of the role? We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) about the reputation of our ambassadorial officials across the world. Would we be better served if in the future we looked to professionals to fill those roles rather than politicians?”
“My right hon. Friend will, without doubt, remember those dark days of covid, when people had to turn up in the workplace, despite being poorly. That contributed to the spread of the pandemic. Does that not illustrate the need to ensure that when people are ill, they can rely on a sickness absence framework that supports them, and allows them to return to work when they have recovered?”
“This House cannot endorse a model that forces workers into the role of Oliver Twist, asking, “Please, Sir, may I have some more?” The duty must rest firmly with employers. Lords amendments 7 and 8 would reduce access to short-notice cancellation payments. Again, the effect is to let employers off the hook. A 48-hour limit is wholly inadequate. Imagine a parent who is told late on a Friday night that their Monday shift has been cancelled; there is no compensation, but there is still childcare to pay for.”
“I urge the House to reject the Opposition’s amendments, which, if passed, would weaken the rights and protections that this Bill seeks to deliver. On Lords amendment 1, which would water down the right to guaranteed hours, let us be clear: moving from a duty on employers to proactively offer secure contracts to a model in which workers must request them would completely undermine the purpose of the Bill. Vulnerable workers, often young people on their very first job, should not be left in the position of having to plead with their employer for basic security. We have heard from Unite members such as Izzy, a pub worker who felt unable to raise issues for fear that her hours would be cut, and Caren, a restaurant worker who was left with 40 hours one week and barely any the next, with her mental health paying the price.”
“I welcome the return of the Employment Rights Bill and the opportunity to address the urgent priorities of the people of this country, which are improving employment rights for better security at work and, ultimately, better pay from work. The cost of living crisis remains a burning issue, and giving people the tools at work to tackle in-work poverty is crucial. This Bill starts the process of delivering much-needed dignity and security for working people. It will not have escaped the attention of colleagues that Members of the party now purporting to speak for working people are nowhere to be seen in this debate. We know whose side the Reform party is on, and it is not working people. These Lords amendments demonstrate the problems before us.”
“I proudly refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which relates to support from trades unions. I welcome the Secretary of State and the new Employment Rights Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to their places. I especially pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax for her support and hard work in the taskforce, when I was shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights and Protections, that led to the production of the new deal for working people. We are in good hands as she carries on the excellent work. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for his excellent stewardship in securing the Employment Rights Bill and taking it thus far.”
“The amendment speaks to those sorts of figures. I am making the point that that sort of notice is simply not acceptable. People cannot live structured lives and be able to plan for their futures under such a dreadful regime, and I reject it wholeheartedly. That is not reasonable notice; it is a transfer of cost and stress on to the worker. USDAW’s evidence shows that, in many sectors, workers already get four weeks’ notice of shifts. The risk here is that by lowering the standard, we drag conditions down across the board. That is why the Government have rightly committed to setting notice periods through consultation, not through arbitrary amendment.”
“We cannot sustain this anathema of fragile, insecure work for so many millions of people in this country; they need that security to plan their futures, and they need to have the protections that those in employment enjoy. In addition, were they to be brought into that architecture, the Treasury would benefit to the tune of more than £10 billion per annum, opposite the uncollected tax and national insurance contributions. Working people have waited long enough. It is time for us to deliver the stronger rights and protections that they truly deserve.”
“It could mean teaching assistants in the same trust being on wildly different terms, creating a postcode lottery in education and exposing staff to equal pay disputes. Instead of undermining sectoral bargaining, we should be expanding it, ensuring fair, consistent and collectively agreed standards across the board. Let us be frank: after years of pay erosion, school support staff truly need a pay restoration deal that values the vital work they do. In every case, the Lords amendments before us risk weakening rights, not strengthening them. Our task is to make work pay, end one-sided flexibility and ensure fairness and dignity for every worker. If this legislation does not go far enough to meet union demands for sectoral bargaining and a single worker status, Members of this House will rightly call for a second employment Bill this autumn.”
“I must urge the rejection of Lords amendment 62, which seeks to retain the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. The threshold was a deliberate barrier imposed by the Trade Union Act 2016. No other democratic process in this country faces such a hurdle—not parliamentary votes or local elections. This House was elected without such restrictions. Trade unions must not be uniquely singled out. Removing the threshold restores fairness, strengthens industrial relations and honours our commitment to repeal draconian Conservative legislation. Finally, Lords amendment 121 would permit academies to deviate from pay and conditions agreed through the school support staff negotiating body, which risks entrenching inequality.”
“We want to get through this consultation as quickly as possible and to get this Bill on the statute book so that the position is clear, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. We need to move on these issues as a matter of urgency, and he is right to point that out. Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120 propose to reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months. We cannot support that halfway measure. Our manifesto is clear: Labour will deliver day one rights. Accepting these amendments risks entrenching insecurity and delaying meaningful reform. Workers should not have to serve a probationary period of six months or two years before being protected from arbitrary dismissal. We will fully consult on probationary arrangements to get them right, but we will not compromise on our principle of security from day one.”
“I am sure I speak for the whole House in sending our best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) on the appalling fire at her office overnight. We send our very best wishes to her and her staff. May I thank the Minister for his statement? The Prime Minister has made exactly the right decision, and I think that has to be acknowledged. He has moved at pace to put it right— [ Interruption. ] Don’t be ridiculous. Treat this seriously.”
“Clearly the appointment process did not pick up these issues; that is self-evident. Can we have an assurance that there will be an inquiry into why that was not the case and that this House will be kept informed?”
“Will the UK match the EU’s move to suspend bilateral support to Israel? And will we ask our F-35 partner nations to consider suspending supplies?”
“UNRWA has been crippled, staff killed, warehouses targeted and its mandate undermined. Since last July, less than 40% of required food supplies have entered Gaza. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, anti-Islamic US biker gang included, operates only a handful of distribution points where UNRWA once ran 800. Its centres are largely in the south, forcing desperate civilians towards the Egyptian border, in line with Israeli military objectives. There have been repeated shootings at those sites. This is not humanitarian work; this is exploitation of suffering. The assault on Gaza City is escalating, 1 million residents have been told to evacuate, and we risk a further escalation of civilian death—a new phase in the genocide, so I ask the Government: what action is being taken to enforce an immediate ceasefire?”
“I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s comment. Much more needs to be done. I also support the call for UN peacekeepers. I ask the Government directly: has there been any discussion with the UN Secretary-General on the use of peacekeepers to secure operations? And will demands be made of President Herzog, as he is here today—the man who signed the bombs that would rain on Gazan children and who made it abundantly clear that he was totally aligned with the principles of collective punishment? We have to shake our heads that such a man should be invited into our country. Civilians in Gaza cannot wait. Starvation is advancing. International law is being shredded. Britain must act decisively, urgently and on the side of humanity.”
“I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is a good man who pays an awful lot of attention to these issues. He is telling us about the difficulties regarding aid and he is applying his mind to them. However, as we speak, we have President Herzog in the country. So I ask the Minister: is that opportunity being used to discuss the root cause of this situation? The failure to transmit humanitarian aid is because of the genocide and war crimes being committed by Israel. Is President Herzog being challenged on his open statements about collective responsibility and saying that there is no such thing as an innocent Gazan? And will he be upbraided for blithely signing his name on bombs that come raining down on Palestinian children? If so, will the Minister make those comments known to the public?”
“At home on Teesside, that must mean electrifying the line from Northallerton and Darlington through to Saltburn. Two hundred years ago, George Stephenson and Edward Pease had the vision to imagine a future that others thought impossible. They did not wait: they built, they acted, and they changed the world. We owe it to their memory, and to the generations to come, to show the same ambition today, so let us celebrate the courage of 1825 not with nostalgia alone, but with action. Let us put Teesside once again at the forefront of Britain’s future as it was at the forefront of Britain’s past. From Stockton to Darlington and from Middlesbrough to Saltburn, the railway that carried coal and steel now carries our pride, our history and our hope. Let us make sure that it carries our future as well.”
“In 2024, the Tees Valley combined authority announced that it would use part of the £1 billion of funding devolved to it to develop a business case for electrification from Northallerton to Saltburn, but the Conservatives’ record is clear. In 2017, when I was shadow Transport Secretary, they scrapped electrification in Wales, the east midlands and the north-west. Again and again promises are made and then abandoned. That is why, whether it is urged by this House’s Transport Committee, the RMT, the Railway Industry Association or the Campaign for Better Transport, I believe that a Labour Government must deliver a long-term, rolling programme of rail electrification—not piecemeal promises or short-term fixes, but a serious national commitment.”
“Passengers and freight alike rely on ageing diesel trains. While other regions benefit from faster, cleaner and more reliable services, Teesside is stuck with the infrastructure of yesterday, not tomorrow. It is a bitter irony that the birthplace of the railway revolution now finds itself waiting on the platform while others speed ahead. Electrification is not just about convenience. It means efficiency; cutting emissions; freight trains hauling more without choking our air; faster, quieter and more reliable passenger services; and connecting Teesside businesses and communities to a modern rail network worthy of the 21st century.”
“We on Teesside can say, with great pride, that it all began with us. In celebrating our heritage, I hope that at the end of this month I will be able join the Boulby Flyer, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), as it runs from Middlesbrough to Saltburn—I will give notice of my visit. I may also visit one of the exhibitions planned at Eaglescliffe station, the one I use so regularly, on the original railway’s route. If the first half of our story is pride, the second half must be honesty. Although our ancestors led the world, our region is today in some respects being left behind. Look at the line that still runs from Darlington, through Middlesbrough, to Saltburn. Nearly two centuries on, it still has not been electrified.”
“Durham coal fed the network—carried to Stockton and Middlesbrough to power London’s homes, factories and ships. As iron and steelworks rose at South Tees, Middlesbrough and Redcar, the railway was their lifeblood. Rails, bridges, engines, ships—the very fabric of the modern world—were forged there and carried by train from that spot. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, having woven Northern Ireland into the debate, was absolutely right: people have to know their own heritage. What I have described brought about the immigration of thousands and thousands of people from Ireland, who came to work in those industries. The Stockton and Darlington railway was not just a local line, but the first step in a global transformation—the marriage of steam, steel and energy that built the modern age.”
“In a few years the line reached the mouth of the Tees, and within a generation a small farmstead called Middlesbrough, with a population of 25 people, became an industrial giant—“the infant Hercules”, as Gladstone called it. The town’s first passenger station opened in 1846 and the present station, dating from 1877, has now been restored, its undercroft part of a new heritage quarter. From the 1880s came the great goods yards and sidings: Middlesbrough goods yard, the dockside yards, the Eston and South Bank sidings feeding the furnaces; then South Bank yard, Cargo Fleet sidings and finally Tees yard in Thornaby—the great marshalling hub for Teesside freight. Here, rail was never just about moving people; it fuelled an industrial revolution.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing this wonderful debate. I hope, Mr Stringer, that you will indulge a speech that not only celebrates our transport heritage but takes a look at our transport future. Some 200 years ago, on 27 September 1825, a small steam locomotive named Locomotion No.1 set off from Shildon, went through Darlington and reached Stockton-on-Tees. What seemed an eccentric experiment at first became the spark that ignited the modern world. That line—the Stockton and Darlington railway—was the first public railway to carry passengers and freight by steam. That journey began on the banks of the Tees; it transformed not only Britain, but every corner of the globe.”
“This has been a really interesting exploration of our fantastic rail heritage, and we have celebrated many elements of it. Since his and my part of the world was the birthplace of the railway and we see the advances that have been made over 200 years—that fantastic progress showcased at the National Railway Museum in York—does my hon. Friend share with me an ambition for our part of the world, and the entire country, to make another seismic shift in the advancement of our transport, to be inspired by that heritage experience and to take it forward for the next 100 or 200 years, for the benefit of our people and economy?”
“On migration we have been following a dangerous script, rather than setting out our own agenda. That is a mistake. It concedes the terrain of debate to malign political actors and their ilk, and distracts from the real crises shaping people’s lives.”
“I offer them my support, and I am reaching out to the hospital CEO, Stacey Hunter, and staff unions. Unison has documented case after case of exploitation of migrant workers. Over 320,000 NHS staff are overseas workers—20% of the workforce. In adult social care, around 20% of workers nationwide, and up to 50% in London, are migrants. There are care workers, tied to exploitative contracts, trapped in overcrowded housing and threatened with deportation if they dare to speak out. Some have even been forced to pay huge sums to take up jobs in this country, only to be told that they must repay those fees if they challenge poor conditions. By binding visas to a single employer, the system hands unscrupulous bosses extraordinary power. Doubling the settlement period will only extend that power.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard, and I welcome the Minister to his place. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to support from trade unions. I welcome the expression of concerns by the Trades Union Congress this week, as well as migrant rights campaigners. I add my support to what they have said about the Government’s plan to double the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain for work visas, as well as to end to overseas recruitment in the NHS and social care for any role below degree level. I raise that matter because I have been made aware that health staff in my constituency at the James Cook University hospital have faced acts of racist abuse in recent weeks.”
“I hope that the Minister will clarify the Government’s position, because behind these rules are human lives. We owe these workers a debt of gratitude, not new barriers, insecurity and betrayal.”
“Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned a few moments ago. The Government must get on with making their fair pay agreement in the health sector a reality, and ensure that social care is funded properly. That element of the Employment Rights Bill will be a great boon, fillip, support and protection for those workers. I urge retention of the five-year route to ILR, a commitment not to apply any change retrospectively, and a sector-wide visa scheme in social care that enables migrant workers to challenge bad employers without the threat of dismissal and removal. I am particularly concerned about reports that the Government intend to apply the new policy on settlement retroactively to those already in the UK who applied and continue to reside under old settlement rules.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Member for his contribution. We have heard speaker after speaker extolling the virtues of and making a positive case for immigration. Of course it is not the immigrant minority who hold our social care services together who are the problem; it is the minority of those with extreme wealth who go to huge lengths to avoid paying their proper taxes. They attend overseas conferences addressed by the leader of the Reform party, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), to learn how to collect multiple citizenships and avoid taxes through webs of multinational corporate arrangements. The question is: who are the patriots? The tax avoiders or the health workers? Being thousands of workers short, the care sector is unable to provide care packages for all those who need support, as the hon.”
“On the reasonable point about English language, the bar has been raised, as the Minister has set out. Is the Minister content that there are sufficient resources devoted to the teaching of the English language? That will be a charge that is put to us if we make that demand but do not put in the resources to match.”
“Nobody is above the law, yet the Metropolitan police report that a total of 857 people were arrested under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at the weekend, the vast majority for simply holding placards stating, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have received any legal advice concerning the implications of hosting a visit by Israeli President Herzog in relation to the UK’s genocide convention responsibilities, particularly given his recent record of stating that there are “no innocent civilians” in Gaza and personally signing artillery shells destined for use in Gaza? Will any visa application made by the Israeli President to visit the UK this week be rejected, or will he be subject to police investigation if he does arrive?”
“The passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 into law is a great achievement of the Government’s first year, and the completion of the Employment Rights Bill will be another. As we get into the business of taking the private rail franchises and their employees back into the public sector, it is vital that the transfer of undertakings process fully engages trade unions, fully protects employment rights and, as we bring in private franchises with varying terms, levels those up to a national gold standard. May we have a statement on how the Government are preparing for that transition?”
“That is why we need an updated duty of candour—one that binds public authorities and individual leaders with consequences when truth is withheld. Crucially, bereaved families must have automatic access to funded representation. For too long, the state has been represented while ordinary families have had to fight alone. I therefore add my voice to those calling for a public inquiry into the deaths of Christie, Nadia and Emily. Indeed, other bereaved families have more than justifiable cause for complaint. Only a full inquiry can reveal the truth, demonstrate why the current duty is insufficient and ensure that lessons are learned. If “never again” is to mean anything, let us deliver the Hillsborough law in full so that openness, honesty and justice become the defining standards of public service.”
“The candour that Parliament demanded in 2014 was absent in practice. The trust has since acknowledged those failings, but wider evidence shows that that is not an isolated case. The Department of Health and Social Care’s recent call for evidence found that only 40% of NHS staff thought that the purpose of the duty was clear, and fewer than a quarter believed that it was correctly applied after serious incidents. Most damning of all, 94% of patients and families felt that providers failed to engage with them meaningfully or compassionately when things went wrong. Rob Behrens, the ombudsman, said that avoidable deaths in mental healthcare are “too common” and that the duty of candour does not work.”
“It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) on securing it. The Government committed to a Hillsborough law in their first year, and it should be delivered without delay and in full. The case for action is starkly illustrated by the experience of bereaved families in my constituency and neighbouring areas whose daughters died under the care of Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS trust, known colloquially as TEWV. Three teenage girls—Christie Harnett, Nadia Sharif and Emily Moore—lost their lives in that trust’s care. The independent reports by Niche Health and Social Care Consulting into their deaths were unequivocal: the statutory duty of candour was not met, families were not told the truth and were not supported after the tragedy, and lessons were not learned.”
“The Minister mentioned getting this right, yet the Government were presented with a fully drafted Bill by a learned counsel. Can she give an indication of where the discrepancies and differentiations are between the Bill that was presented—properly drawn—and the current Government position?”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for making it clear that this country has historic responsibilities in the region, and he has been consistent in calling for a ceasefire month after month. That has not happened, so I ask him in all sincerity: what changes does he really expect by simply continuing to repeat that? If Israel has the ability to qualify, through those “unless” statements, whether recognition is granted, I ask him to reflect on that. In answer to the earlier exchange on the potential for a peacekeeping force, surely Israel should not have the ability to put a block on that. The people of Palestine deserve better than that, surely.”
“When are we going to take the appropriate action to bring about a comprehensive trade and arms embargo and concentrate the mind of Israel? Nothing else is working. They are not listening, and they are getting away with murder every single day.”
“The statement we have from the 25 or 31 partners takes us no further forward. It says: “We are prepared to take further action to support an immediate ceasefire”. People want action, not more repetition of, “We call for”, “We demand” and “We urge”. We want action, and this is not action. We have had this so many times before. We have this terrible humanitarian crisis, the forcible transfer of civilians, and starvation by Israel. How can it be that we have a situation in which the IDF are firing at children and systematically going for the head, stomach and testicles for their sport, and in which Rafah has been razed to the ground and this euphemistic “humanitarian city” is being constructed, which the former Prime Minister of Israel has called a “concentration camp”?”
“Members must consider today which constituents whose doors they knock on will find themselves £3,000 a year worse off. The weekly top-up for those too unwell to work, which is currently £97, will fall to £50 for new applicants—the same condition and need as current claimants, but half the support. That is not fairness; it is the creation of a two-tier welfare system. We are not talking about abstractions; we are talking about people who cannot walk 50 metres, or who need constant supervision, or who cannot operate a keypad unaided. They currently receive £423 per month. Soon, some could receive as little as £217 per month. That is not a budget decision; it is a moral one.”
“I know that Boris Johnson struggled with that, but “no recourse to public funds” means exactly what it says. I wish to speak about the impact were the House to pass amendment 2. I recognise that the amendment adopts some of the previously announced concessions and somewhat limits the damage of clause 2. But let me be clear: even with the amendment, the clause is not acceptable. The Bill is not welfare reform; it is a cut—deliberate, far-reaching and deeply damaging. Even after amendments, clause 2 will remove £2 billion from disabled people in the years ahead. Three quarters of those affected are already in material deprivation. Around 750,000 individuals—people who are too ill to work—stand to lose an average of £3,000 a year.”
“I rise to speak in support of new clauses 8 and 11, amendment 38 and the Bill more broadly. This informed debate has been conducted respectfully. Throughout the entire process, it has been illuminating to hear from so many Members with such in-depth personal, familial and professional experience. I urge those on the Government Front Bench to look upon such Members from across the House as a resource, because they speak with great authority. I mention in particular the speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), which were so informative. May I correct one earlier comment? We heard from one Opposition Member that “no recourse to public funds” means “recourse to public funds.” Well, the clue is in the descriptor.”
“The hon. Member makes a powerful point. We have to raise our heads and look at our brothers and sisters, who are actively and economically engaged in our country, and think about the contribution they make and the payments they make into the Treasury, through tax and national insurance. We must treat them with dignity and respect, rather than trying to other them at every opportunity.”